## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 0- 36 82

__ __ __ __ __ _
Alp in e Gla ss , Inc

., *

*
Pl ai nt iff - App el la nt

, *

*

v. *

*
Co un try Mut ua l In su ran ce Co m pa ny; * App eal fro m th e Uni te d S ta te s MSI Prefe rred Ins ur an ce Co m pa ny; * Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e Mu tu al Serv ic e Cas ua lt y

Ins ur an ce * Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta

. Co m pa ny; Mo de rn Serv ic e In su ran ce *
Co m pa ny; Co un try Prefer red *

In su ran ce Co m

pa ny; Co un try *
Cas ua lt y Ins ur an ce Co m

pa ny, *

*
Defen da nt s - Ap pe ll ees

. *

__ __ __ __ __ _

Su bm it te d: Octo be r 19 , 20 11
Fi le d: Aug us t 2 , 20 12

__ __ __ __ __ _

Befo re MELLOY, BEAM, an d GRUENDER, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ _
MELLOY, Circu it Ju dg e.Alp in e Glas s, In c. ( A l p i n e), ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t's pa rti al de ni al of 1
Alp in e's m ot io n to co ns ol id at e 48 2 sh or t-p ay cl ai m s for arbi tra ti on ag ai ns t Co un try

Mu tu al In su ran ce Co

. an d fiv e of it s su bs id ia rie s (co ll ect iv el y , Co un try). Bec au se th e
di st ric t co ur t's or de r is ne it he r a fi n a l or de r un de r 28 U.S.C. § 12 91 no r ap pe al ab le

un de r th e co ll at eral ord er d oc tri ne , we di sm is s t he ap pe al for want of ju ris di ct io n.

I.

Und er Mi nn es ota' s hig hly -reg ul at ed au to -g la ss -in su ran ce fram ewo rk

, whe n an

in su red dr iv er ha s au to gl as s wor k pe rfo rm ed

, th e dr iv er do es no t pa y th e au to gl as s

co m pa ny di rect ly. I n st ead

, th e in su red as si gn s hi s cl ai m ag ai ns t hi s in su ran ce

co m pa ny to th e au to gl as s co m pa ny. Tha t co m

pa ny th en se ek s rei m

bu rs em en t fro m
th e in su red 's in su ran ce co m pa ny. The fo rm

ul as th at th e gl as s a n d i n s u r an ce

co m pa ni es us e to de te rm in e rei m bu rs em en t are si m ila

r but not id en ti cal ; th e in su ran ce

co m pa ni es typic al ly rei mbu rs e th e gl as s co m pa ni es le ss th an th e am ou nt th e gl as s

co m pa ni es de m an d. In Mi nn es ot a, pu rs ua nt to th e Mi nn es ot a No- Fau lt Aut om ob il e

In su ran ce Act, di sp ut es ov er th es e "s ho rt pa y s" are su bjec t to m an da to ry arb it rat io n.

Mi nn . Sta t. § 65 B.5 25

.

Thi s cas e co nc e r n s 4 8 2 su ch cl ai m s by Alp in e ag ai ns t Co un try. Alp in e's

or ig in al co m

pl ai nt

, fil ed in Mi nn es ot a st at e co ur t on Nov em be r 5, 20 09

, an d na m in g

on ly Co un try Mu tu al In su ran ce Co

. (Co un try Mu tu al ), so ug ht a de cl arat or y jud gm en t

co ns ol id at in g al l 48 2 cl ai m s in to on e arb it rat io n. Co un try Mu tu al rem ov ed th e cas e

to fed eral co ur t ba se d on di ve rs it y , aft er w h i c h A l pi ne m ov ed to co ns ol id at e th e
cl ai m s for arbi tra ti on

. Onc e it be cam e cl ear th at so m e of th e in su ran ce po li ci es ha d

be en is su e d b y Co un try M ut ua l's su bs id ia rie s rat he r th an by Co un try M ut ua l it se lf,

The Hon or ab le Pau l A. Mag nu so n, Uni te d St at es D ist ric t Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1

of Mi nn es ot a.

-2

-Alp in e fil ed an am en de d co m pl ai nt on Ja nu ary 28

, 20 10

, ad di ng th os e su bs id ia rie s

as na m ed de fen da nt s.

Alp in e m ov ed fo r su m

m ar y jud gm en t on th e is su e of co ns ol id at io n, an d th e
di st ric t co ur t gr an te d th e m ot io n as to so m e cl ai m s bu t de ni ed i t a s t o o th ers

. The

cl ai m s fel l in to two cat eg or ie s: t h os e th at were ba se d on a po li cy th at in cl ud ed a

two -y ear li m it at io ns cl au se an d th os e th at were no t. The co ur t co ns ol id at ed fo r
arb it rat io n th e cl ai m s no t su bjec t to th e li m it at io ns cl au se , as well as th os e cl ai m s th at

, th ou gh su bjec t to th e cl au se , ha d be en fil ed wit hi n tw o ye a r s of th e fil in g of th e

am en de d co m

pl ai nt

. Alt og et he r, th e di st ric t co ur t co ns ol id at ed 24 8 of th e cl ai m s. As

to th e rem ai ni ng 23 4 cl a i ms, th e di st ric t co ur t ru le d th at th e li m it at io ns cl au se

pr ev en te d an y act io n up on th os e po li ci es an d th eref or e th e co ur t was wit ho ut po wer

to co ns ol id at e th em

. Fi na ll y , th e d is tri ct co ur t ass ig ne d th e m at te r to arb it rat io n for

fin al de te rm in at io n.

W it ho ut m ov in g fo r cert ifi cat io n to ap pe al un de r 28 U.S.C. § 12 92 (b ), Alp in e

fil ed a di rect ap pe al be fo re th is co ur t, rai si ng two is su es

. Fi rs t, Alp in e arg ue d th at th e
di st ric t co ur t erre d whe n it de ni ed Alp in e's m ot io n to co ns ol id at e as to th e cl ai m s
ba se d on po li ci es co nt ai ni ng th e li m it at io n cl au se

. Seco nd

, Alp in e arg u e d t ha t th e
di st ric t co ur t erre d in ba si ng th e two -y ear pe rio d on th e da te of th e fil in g of th e

am en de d co m

pl ai nt

, rat he r t h a n on th e da te of th e fil in g of th e or ig in al co m pl ai nt

. Pri or to or al arg um en t, we su a sp on te req ue st ed su pp le m en ta l br ie fin g on th is co ur t's
juri sd ic ti on to he ar Alp in e's ap p e a l

, sp eci fic al ly in li gh t of Alp in e Glas s, In c. v.
Ill in oi s Farm ers In s. Co

., 53 1 F.3 d 67 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) an d A l p i n e G l a ss , In c. v.
All st at e In s. Co ., 53 1 F .3d 68 5 (8 th Cir . 20 08 ). 2

I n b o t h c a s es , th is co ur t su a sp on te req ue st ed su pp le m en ta l br ie fin g on th e 2 juri sd ic ti on al is su e.

-3

-II.

Und er 28 U.S.C. § 12 91 , t hi s co ur t ha s "jur is di ct io n o f ap pe al s fr om all fin al

de ci si on s of the di st ric t cou rts of th e Uni te d St at es ." A di st ric t cou rt' s ord er is fin al

" if it en ds th e li ti ga ti on on th e m eri ts an d le av es no th in g m or e fo r th e di st ric t c o u r t

to do bu t ex ecu te th e jud gm en t." Ill in oi s Farm ers , 53 1 F.3 d at 68 1 (in te rn al qu ot at io n

an d al te rat io n om it te d)

. In Ill in oi s Farm ers , we co nc lu de d th at a di st ric t co ur t's or de r

co ns ol id at in g cl ai m s fo r ar b it rat io n was no t a fin al or de r un de r § 12 91 be cau se , "[u ]nde r th e No- Fau lt act

, an arb it rat or 's de ci si on on a le ga l qu es ti on is su bjec t to de

no vo rev ie w b y t h e di st ric t co ur t." Id

. at 68 2 (in te rn al qu ot at io n om it te d)

. In th at

cas e, as he re, "th e di st ric t co ur t wil l no t on ly ha ve to co nf irm (o r va cat e, or m od ify)

an y arb it ral award

, bu t it wil l al so ha ve to rev ie w th e arb it rat or 's le ga l de te rm in at io ns
de no vo ." Id

. Here, be cau se "t he di st ri c t c o u r t w i l l ha ve m or e to do th an si m pl y

ex ecu te th e jud gm en t fo ll owi ng th e No- Fau lt arb it rat ion ," th is co ur t la ck s juri sd ic ti on

un de r § 1 29 1. Id . (in te rn al qu ot at io n o m it te d)

.

Alp in e co nt en ds

, ho wev er, th at th is co ur t ha s juri sd ic ti on un de r th e co ll at eral

or de r do ct rin e. W he th er th e co ll at eral or de r do ct rin e su pp or ts jur i s d ic ti on fo r an

ap pe al fro m a de ni al of a su m m ary jud g m en t m ot io n to co ns ol id at e cl ai m s fo r
arb it rat io n i s a q ue st io n o f fi rs t i m pr es si on for th is co ur t.

"[B ]est un de rs to od

. . . as a pr act ic al co ns tru ct io n" of th e fin al jud gm en t ru le

, Di g i ta l Equ ip m en t Co rp

. v. Des kt op Dire ct

, In c., 51 1 U.S. 86 3, 86 7 (1 99 4)

, th e

co ll at eral or de r do ct rin e ap pl ie s to "d eci si on s 'whi ch fin al ly de te rm in e cl ai m s of rig ht

se pa rat e fro m , an d co ll at eral to

, rig ht s as se rte d in th e act io n, to o im po rta nt to be

de ni ed rev ie w an d to o in de pe nd en t of th e cau se it se lf t o r eq ui re th at ap pe ll at e juri sd ic ti on be de ferr ed un ti l th e who le cas e is ad jud ic at ed .'" Mi dl an d Asp ha lt Co rp

.

v. Uni te d St at es , 48 9 U.S. 79 4, 79 8 (1 98 9) (q uo ti ng Co he n v. Ben efi ci al In du s. Loa n

Co rp ., 33 7 U.S. 54 1, 54 6 (1 94 9) ). Ju ris di ct io n is p r o p e r u n d er th at do ct rin e if th e

or de r ap pe al ed fro m "(1 ) co nc lu si ve ly d e t e r mine s a di sp ut ed is su e; (2 ) whi ch is an

-4

-imp or ta nt is su e co m pl et el y se pa rat e f

r o m th e m eri ts ; an d (3 ) is ef fe ct iv el y

un re vi ewa bl e on ap pe al f ro m a fin al jud gm en t." Ill in oi s Farm ers , 53 1 F.3 d at 68 4
(ci ta ti on om it te d)

. Thi s an al y si s req ui res a co ns id erat i o n o f t he im po rta nc e of th e

in te res ts th at im

m ed ia te ap pe ll at e rev ie w vi nd ic at es : "Th e cru ci al qu es ti on , ho wev er,
is no t whet he r an in te res t is im po rta nt in th e ab st ract ; it is whe th er defe rri ng rev ie w

un ti l f i n a l ju dg m en t so im

pe ril s th e in te res t as to jus ti fy th e co st of al lo win g

im m ed ia te ap pe al of th e en ti re cl as s of rel ev an t or de rs ." Mo ha wk In d u s., In c. v. Carp en te r, 13 0 S.Ct

. 59 9, 6 0 6 ( 2 00 9)

. Fi na ll y , th e Su pr em e Co ur t ha s rep eat ed ly

st res se d th at th is "'n a r r ow' ex cep ti on sh ou ld st ay th at way an d ne ve r be al lo wed to

swa ll ow th e ge ne ral ru le th at a pa rty is en ti tl ed to a si ng le ap pe al

, to be de ferr ed un ti l

fin al jud gm en t ha s be en en te red ." Dig it al Equ ip

., 51 1 U.S. at 86 8 (ci ti ng Ri ch ard so nMer rel l, In c. v. Ko ll er, 4 72 U.S. 42 4, 4 36 (19 85 )).

In Ill in oi s Farm ers an d All st at e, we he ld th at we la ck ed juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w

a di st ri c t c o u r t's or de r co ns ol id at in g cl ai m s fo r arb it rat io n be cau se th at or de r was
effe ct iv el y rev ie wab le fo ll owi ng th e en try of a fin al jud gm en t. Thu s, in ne it he r cas e
di d ou r ho ld in g tu rn on whe t h e r a co ns ol id at io n or de r is su ffi ci en tl y im po rta nt to

m eri t r e v i ew un de r th e co ll at eral or de r do ct rin e—t ho ug h we ob se rv ed in di ct a th at
"[e ]ven if Alls ta te co ul d est ab li sh th at it s i nt eres t re ga rd in g c on so li da ti on wou ld be

irr et rie va bl y lo st if it ha d to wait fo r a fin al jud gm en t, th is in te res t is no t su ffi ci en tl y
im po rta nt to m eri t co ns id erat io n as a co ll at eral or de r." All st at e, 53 1 F.3 d at 68 8 n.3
(in te rn al qu ot at io n om it te d) ; se e al so Ill in oi s Farm ers , 53 1 F.3 d at 68 5 ("[ t]he ch an ce
th at th e li ti ga ti on at ha nd m ig ht be sp eed ed

, or a pa rti cu la r in jus ti ce av ert ed by a

pr om pt ap pe ll at e de ci si on are, st an di ng al on e, in su ffi ci en t reas on s" fo r ap pl y in g th e

co ll at eral or de r do ct rin e (in te rn al qu ot at io n om it te d) ). I n t h i s c a s e, it is un cl ear
whe th er t he di st ric t co ur t's ord er de nyin g co ns ol id at io n is effe ct iv el y un rev ie wab le

on ap p e al

. W e ne ed no t ad dr es s th e is su e, ho wev er, be cau se Alp in e's in te res t in

3

Alp in e st res se s th at

, if th e di st ric t c o u r t's or de r st an ds

, th en Alp in e wil l be 3

fo rced in to pi ecemeal arb it r a t i o n o f th e cl ai m s th at were no t co ns ol id at ed

, th ereb y

-5

-co ns ol id at io n he re is no t "s uf fic ie nt ly im

po rta nt to m eri t co ns id erat io n as a co ll at eral

or de r." Id . at 6 88 n.3

.

A l p i n e arg ue s th at

, ab se nt ap pe ll at e rev ie w, it is face d wit h th e on ero u s

pr os pe ct of sl og gi ng th ro ug h 23 4 in di vi du al arb it rat io ns whe n, un de r it s vi ew of th e
la w, t h o s e arb it rat io ns sh ou ld ha ve be en co ns ol id at ed in to on e. Bu t th e Su pr em e

Co ur t ha s m ad e cl ear th at "t he av oi da nc e of li ti ga ti on fo r it s own sa ke " is in su ffi ci en t

to warra nt rev ie w un de r th e co ll at eral or de r do ct rin e. W il l v. Hall oc k, 54 6 U.S. 34 5,

35 3 (2 00 6)

. If co nv en ie nc e to th e pa rti es al on e jus ti fie d fu rth er ab ro ga t i on of th e

fin al jud gm en t ru le

, th en th e co ll at eral or de r do ct rin e wou ld "s wall ow th e ge ne ral ru le

th at a pa rty is en ti tl ed to a si ng le ap pe al

, to be de ferr ed un ti l fin al jud gm en t ha s be en

e n t e red ." Mo ha wk In du s., 13 0 S.Ct

. at 60 5 (in te rn al qu ot at io n om it te d)

. A n

erro ne ou s de ci si on by th e tri al co ur t al way s th reat en s to rai se th e ag gr ie ve d pa rty's

li ti ga ti on co st s, y et th e Su pr em e Co ur t ha s cab in ed juri sd ic ti on un de r th e co ll at eral

or de r do ct rin e to cas es whe re "so m e pa rti cu la r va lu e o f a h ig h o rd er was m ars ha le d

in su pp or t of th e in te res t in av oi di ng tri al ." W il l, 54 6 U.S. at 35 2. W e th us "d ecl in e[]

t o fin d th e co st s as so ci at ed wit h un ne ces sa ry li ti ga ti on to be en ou gh to warr a n t "
juri sd ic ti on un de r th e co ll at eral or de r do ct rin e. Lau ro Lin es s.r.l

. v. Ch as se r, 49 0 U.S.

49 5, 49 9 (1 98 9) ; se e al so Dig it al Equ ip

., 51 1 U.S. at 87 2 ("[ a]n erro ne o u s d i s t r ic t

co ur t deci si on wil l, as a pr act ic al m at te r, so un d t he 'de at h kn el l' for m an y pl ai nt iff s'

cl ai m s th at m ig ht ha ve go ne fo rward if pr om pt erro r co rrec ti on ha d be en an op ti on

. Bu t if im m ed ia te ap pe ll at e rev ie w we re av ai la bl e ev ery su ch ti me, C o n g res s's fin al

de ci si on ru le wou ld en d up a pr et ty pu ny on e, an d so th e m ere id en ti fic at io n of so m e

in te res t th at wou ld be 'ir ret rie va bl y lo st ' ha s ne ve r su ffi ced to m eet th e th ird Co he n

req ui rem en t." ).

ren de rin g th e co ns ol id at io n or de r un rev ie wab le fo ll owi ng fin al jud gm en t. Howev er, th e pa rti es at or al arg um en t were un ab le to art ic ul at e a reas on why Alp in e co ul d no t

pu rs ue a si ng le cl ai m to fin al jud gm en t, whic h wou ld th en al lo w Alp in e to pr op erl y pl ace t he co ns ol id at io n i ss ue be fo re t hi s co ur t as an ap pe al fro m a fi na l o rd er.

-6

-Fu rth er, Alp in e's na rro w fo cu s on th e co st of pi ecemeal arb it rat io n in th is cas e

is m is pl aced

. W he n de te rm in in g whe th er to ap pl y "t he bl un t, cat eg or ic al in st ru m en t

of § 12 91 co ll at eral or de r ap pe al ," Dig it al Equ ip

., 51 1 U.S. at 88 3, "we do no t en ga ge

in an in di vi du al iz ed juri sd ic ti on al in qu iry. Rat he r, ou r fo cu s is on th e en ti re ca te go ry

to whi ch a cl ai m b e lo ng s." Mo ha wk In du s., 13 0 S.Ct

. at 60 5 (em ph as is ad de d)
(in te rn al qu ot at io n om it te d)

. A ho ld in g th at Alp in e m ay ap pe al un de r th e co ll at eral

or de r do ct rin e wou ld th eref or e ap pl y to al l de ni al s of su m m ary jud gm en t m ot io ns to

c o n s o li da te arb it rat io ns —wh et he r th os e ap pe al s co nc ern ed on e or on e th ou sa n d

cl ai m s. See Dig it al Equ ip

., 51 1 U.S. at 87 6– 77

. Rat h e r t h an an al y ze th e sp eci fic

effe ct of th e ru li ng on th e pa rti es be fo re us , we in st ead m us t lo ok to th e in te res ts th at

im m ed ia te ap pe ll at e rev ie w wou ld vi nd ic at e acr os s t hi s en ti re cl as s o f cas es

.

Asi de fro m th e pa rti es ' in te res ts in effi ci en t arb it rat io n— whi ch , a s di sc us se d

ab ov e, do es no t su pp or t c o l l at eral or de r rev ie w—t he on ly ot he r in te res t Alp in e
id en ti fie s is th e St at e of Mi nn es ot a's pu bl ic po li cy in te res t in effi ci en tl y ad m in is te red

arb it rat io n pr oc eed in gs in th e au to gl as s in du st ry

. W hi le Mi nn es ot a's "No -Fau lt Act

an d [] Ru le s of No- Fau lt Arb it rat io n are si le nt on th e ab il it y of co ur ts to co ns ol id at e
arb it rat io n pr oc eed in gs ," th e Mi nn es ot a Su pr em e Co ur t ha s de te rm in ed th at on e of

th e No- Fau lt A c t ' s p u r po se s is to pr om ot e effi ci en t res ol ut io n of arb it rat io n an d

li ti ga ti on

. Ill in oi s Farm ers In s. Co

. v. Glas s Serv

. Co

., 68 3 N.W .2d 79 2, 80 5– 06
(Mi nn . 20 04 ) (ci ti ng Mi nn . Sta t. § 65 B.4 2) . Alp in e arg ue s t ha t, g iv en th e po li cy in

fav or of co ns ol id at io n, th is co ur t sh ou ld fin d th e av oi da nc e of on ero us arb it rat io n to

be su ffi ci en tl y im

po rta nt to warran t i m

m ed ia te rev ie w. Bu t no t ever y pu bl ic po li cy

pr efer en ce can su pp or t juri sd ic ti on un de r th e co ll at eral o r d e r do ct rin e; rat he r, su ch
juri sd ic ti on m

us t res t up on a "s ub st an ti al pu bl ic in te res t or som e pa rti cu la r va lu e of

a hi gh or de r." Mo ha wk In du s., 13 0 S.Ct

. at 60 5

. Th e i nt eres ts an d va lu es th e

Su pr em e Co ur t ha s fo un d su ffi ci en t are weig ht ie r th an th e in te res t at st ak e he re. See

W il l, 54 6 U.S. at 35 2– 5 3 ("I n each cas e, so m e pa rti cu la r va lu e of a hi gh or de r was

m ars ha le d in su pp or t of th e in te res t in av oi di ng tri al : ho no rin g th e se pa rat io n of

po wers , pr es erv in g th e effi ci en cy of go ve rn m en t an d t h e i n i t i a ti ve of it s of fic ia ls

,

-7

-res pe ct in g a St at e's di gn it ary in te res ts

, an d m it ig at in g th e go ve rn m en t's ad va nt ag e

ov er th e in di vi du al ."). Acco rd in gl y , th e de ni al of a m ot io n to co ns ol id at e arb it rat io ns
do es no t "i m

pe ril a su bs ta nt ia l pu bl ic in te res t" su ffi ci en t to warra nt juri sd ic ti on un de r
th e co ll at eral or de r do ct rin e. W il l, 54 6 U.S. at 35 3 ("Th at is

, it is no t m ere av oi da nc e
of a tri al

, bu t av oi da nc e of a tri al th at wou ld im pe ril a su bs ta nt ia l pu bl ic in te res t, th at

co un ts whe n as ki ng whe th er an or d e r is effe ct iv el y un rev ie wab le if rev ie w is to be

le ft u nt il lat er." ( in te rn al qu ot at io n o m it te d) ). 4

Acco rd in gl y , we di sm is s Al pi ne 's a pp eal for lac k o f ap pe ll at e juri sd ic ti on

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

W e no te th at

, in ex cep ti on al c i r c u ms ta nc es , a pa rty m ay pu rs ue ap pe ll at e 4

rev ie w wit ho ut rel ia nc e on th e co ll at e ral or de r do ct rin e. The "s afet y va lv es " of
in te rlo cu to ry ap pe al un de r 28 U.S

. C

. § 1 2 9 2 ( b)

, as well as a pe ti ti on fo r a writ of

m an da m us , pr ov id e "p ot en ti al av en ue s of rev ie w ap art fro m co ll at eral or de r ap pe al ."
Mo ha wk In du s., 1 30 S.Ct . at 6 07

.

-8

-